When convenient.. She Checked the Box
By Shawn on Sep 21, 2012 in Politics
That’s the point made in the opening salvo during last night’s debate between Sen Scott Brown and his challenger Elizabeth Warren.
During her career getting jobs at upper crust ivy-league institutions, she checked off the box indicating that she is a native American and person of color, “and obviously she’s not,” he said.
Later, he pointed out that her campaign is focusing on following the Democrat call to raise taxes, yet when it comes to Massachusetts she chose not to “check the box” to pay the higher rate she calls on others to pay.
In a campaign where she was hoping that issue went away, he was able to use the opening question to bring it back to the foreground, as well as point out his bipartisanship in voting for both Republican and Democrat initiatives. Democrat idea, Republican idea, he points out that he looks at both and vote for what he decides is best.
“Character, honesty and truthfulness.. she failed that test.” — Sen Brown
Loading ...
Joe80s | Sep 21, 2012 | Reply
Liar, liar… The most fraudulent candidate ever. Talk about not vetting a candidate.
Rich Cowan | Sep 21, 2012 | Reply
I thought Senator Brown tried this attack in May, and it did not stick. Two universities released FOIA documents showing that Warren did not check the Native American box in her employment application. Playing the “race card” did not win Brown any additional voters in the past, so why does he think it will have that effect now?
Shawn | Sep 21, 2012 | Reply
What I would say, Rich, is if there is anything I have learned over there years is that when it comes to politics.. its not always about the facts.
Its about the presentation, the audience, and the timing.
In this one, I think he got it in one.
Eric J | Sep 21, 2012 | Reply
Anywhere else, posing as a minority in order to obtain a sinecure at Harvard would give voters reason to pause. But we mustn’t forget, this is Massachusetts where integrity is always subordinate to ideology.
Anywhere else, the old saw about political suicide, “Don’t get caught with a dead girl or a live boy” is regarded as sagacious wisdom. In Massachusetts we have Ted Kennedy and Gerry Studds. The utterance of the former’s name result’s in paroxysms of abject reverence and genuflection among the liberal flock. The latter doesn’t garner that level of awe, after all there is only one true liberal savior. He was, however, returned to office after being caught turning an underage page.
In other words, the usual political mores do not apply. Still not convinced?
We have a congressman who responded to an ad in Blade magazine placed there by a gentleman who billed himself as “Hot Bottom.” Despite such humble beginnings, a relationship blossomed and flourished until the time it was discovered that Mr. Bottom was running a gay prostitution ring out of the congressman’s home. Sadly that brought about the demise of their union and caused the congressman to receive a censure from the House of Representatives. Barney Frank continues to be the pride of Newton.
Currently we’ve got Congressman Tierney warming-up in the bullpen. His wife managed an account for the family’s illegal gambling operation. John was shocked, shocked I say to learn that there was gambling going on in his family! He’s currently running for re-election and he’s establishing conditions for any debates. No mention of the gambling thing. Only in Massachusetts.
Other flotsam in the cesspool – three House speakers indicted, convicted of various crimes, Dianne Wilkerson a one woman three-ring circus of corruption with a crescendo of stuffing her ill-gotten booty in her bra while the FBI did its version of Paul Simon’s Kodachrome!! Then there was Boston city councilor Chuck Turner also getting his close-up with a constituent’s gratuity!
When one considers all the graft, corruption, shady ethics , a corpse and various sexual indiscretions that comprise the Massachusetts political establishment, Lizzie’s transgression appears quaint by comparison. And whatever you do, DON’T think for a moment it’s going to matter to the rank and file moon bat that the good professor may have stretched the truth a bit. In Massachusetts that’s just how our politicians are and we love them for it!
I wish Senator Brown well – but I’m not optimistic. All he’s done was what he said he’d do and he’s an honest man who loves and is loved by his family. Now that I’ve written that in black & white – Christ he hasn’t got a chance!
george boag | Sep 22, 2012 | Reply
A May 10 Globe story cites Warren’s 1973 student application to Rutgers law school and University of Texas law school employment records from 1981 as examples where Warren did not claim minority status. From 1986-1985 she listed herself as a minority in a national law school directory. During that period she was hired at the University of Pennsylvania and Harvard. Neither of those universities has released documentation on the matter but both touted her as a minority in public statements. FOIA does not cover private universities only government agencies. Whether or not she used it to her advantage Ms. Warren still claims native American heritage and there is no documentation to support it. She should have said in the beginning this was something she had been told as a child but is not true. Her continuing to pass off fiction as fact hurts her credibility. When politicians lie about little things that shows a lack of character.
Rich Cowan | Sep 23, 2012 | Reply
Eric – the first sentence in your argument doesn’t seem to make a lot of sense to me. In every state — even Republican ones — voters are likely to pick candidates who share their views over an opponent who would vote against their interests. Massachusetts is not unique.
Warren’s belief that she had native lineage (it may or not be mistaken, we don’t know yet) –this is really an issue? The charges that she got a job because of that belief are unsubstantiated. This line of attack obscures the more important point: Warren may have been hired in part to put more women on the faculty. The percentage of women was still under 10% when she was first offered a job at Harvard. Her hiring was seen as a victory for diversity because of the “gender” box she checked, not because of the “race” box.
Brown has some truth issues of his own, let’s not forget. His repeated statement that he is “pro-choice” despite an 80% favorable rating from the National Right to Life Committee is just one of them. Brown would deny contraception coverage to women based on the political views of whoever happens to be the CEO of their company at the time.
George, since you like to do the math, why don’t you look at the median income and tax rates paid by households in Dracut plus the money received for government programs per year. Don’t forget special education, title I, school lunch, student loans. Then look at how those numbers would change under budgets supported by Scott Brown, Elizabeth Warren, and the two Senators (Reid and McConnell) vying to become Senate majority leader based on the outcome of the MA, WI, and MT races.
If my assumptions are correct, the Brown-McConnell budget will RAISE federal taxes on about 75% of Dracut residents including many working poor while cutting at least $500,000 in grant revenue the town now receives. Meanwhile, Nantucket residents, or at least the wealthiest 50% of them will all get a juicy tax break that they don’t really need.
Shawn | Sep 23, 2012 | Reply
There is no “Brown McConnell” budget.
The President’s budget was voted down by every member of the Congress, both Democrat and Republican.. so he has none either.
Taxes are going up for everyone. Its a given. Federal programs are being cut, its also a given. The fiscal cliff cannot be ignored any longer. $6 Trillion in impact over the next 10 years cannot be ignored. Everyone understands that the default of just one debt will collapse the economy of the world to a point worse than the great depression.
Warren’s native american issue is not about heritage.. its about using minority status for personal gain. She has the ability to release the information that would prove one way or another whether she did so. Brown pointed that out. Warren never claimed her being hired was about her being a woman. The colleges where she worked sure took advantage of her claim of heritage by declaring they had a native american on staff, not a woman.
As to the right to life issue, I happen to respect the fact that he is also supportive of people’s religion. The fact that a woman chose to work for a religious organization, and then complains later that it won’t break its moral principles is important. As we always say, politics is about compormise, and protecting rights. The religious rights of some, versus the benefits rights of another is a balance that has to be considered. The “National Right to Life” committee, I’m sure, has no respect for religion, so they are not a valid measure of the issue.
Eric J | Sep 23, 2012 | Reply
My sentence makes perfect sense to those not wasting time being intentionally obtuse. I am saying that in Massachusetts, the Democrat political establishment will support any politician – even those exhibiting grossly unethical, criminal or sexually deviant behavior (see Kennedy, Ted) , just so long as they espouse the party line. I realize that this may be a foreign concept but some people do factor in a person’s integrity before deciding to support them even if they agree with that person on the issues.
I am also not arguing that Warren may have some Native American ancestry. That’s the straw argument that you and her supporters have latched onto. But Rich even a Neanderthal like me recognizes that a diversity hire for someone of native American heritage should be for someone whose assent was slowed due to the marginalizing aspects of the Native American experience. What aspects of her Native American experience does she bring to Harvard? High cheekbones?
Everything you assert that is unsubstantiated is because Lizzie doesn’t wish to provide information that would substantiate it.
And after reading hundreds of words regarding this issue and listening to many hours of debate about it, YOU are the first to claim Lizzie was hired for her gender. Even she hasn’t made that absurd assertion.
Finally, regarding the abortion issue. Let’s talk about language first. I realize when you say “Pro-choice” what you really mean is pro-abortion. I know that because if you were truly pro-choice you would understand why Senator Brown voted to allow entities with religious affiliations to not provide coverage for abortions or contraceptives in adherence to their long standing beliefs. That would represent a choice on their part and if women really desired coverage for these things they would seek employment (as is their choice) with an employer not affiliated with a religious organization.
See, that is what choice really means.
Rich Cowan | Sep 24, 2012 | Reply
Eric -
Arguing about Warren’s cheekbones, or Brown’s cheekbones for that matter, is a ridiculous waste of time so let’s stick to facts please.
You refer to Brown’s vote on the Blunt amendment as an issue only affecting employees working for a “religious organization.” This is a distortion: his amendment goes much further. If it passed, it would have allowed any company — a landscaping company, a software company, whatever — to deny contraception coverage to its employees.
Your statement about Democrats never penalizing one of their own, where do you get this info? Wilkinson and Galluccio are two recent examples; both were asked to resign by the “establishment,” in this case the Senate president.
I understand your outrage about Kennedy but the Chappaquiddick incident was 43 years ago. I went with a group of a dozen students to a meeting with Kennedy 25 years ago at his Senate office. He acted like a jerk to our group. But does this have anything to do with Warren? No.
Warren is the daughter of a janitor and Kennedy was the son of a multimillionaire, and later brother of a president. Your attempt to link Warren to Kennedy is a bit of a stretch, don’t you think?
Finally, I never said that Warren was unqualified for her job at Harvard and hired ONLY because of gender. You are trying to put words in my mouth. I said she “may have been hired in part” because Harvard was looking to put more women on its faculty. The law school was making almost no progress in this direction for a full decade and they finally reacted to all the criticism.
As a student, I knew lots of people in the late 1980s who were involved in this issue. Just because some of my information comes from real life and not the Warren campaign — or Brietbart.com — doesn’t mean it is false.
Eric J | Sep 24, 2012 | Reply
Okay, we’re back to wasting time again. I remember in grade school in order to demonstrate proficiency in reading comprehension, we were given something to read and then asked to state the main idea. It seems we are re-visiting that exercise.
The premise of my original post was a reminder to Shawn that Massachusetts Democrats have historically enthusiastically supported politicians who have exhibited unethical, criminal or immoral behavior and to not believe that Warren’s (alleged) lack of integrity would have any influence on liberal voters.
Rich, you know we aren’t arguing about cheekbones. I am arguing that affirmative action or diversity hires should not be bestowed upon an individual with possibly 1/32 of the targeted ethnicity who has had endured none of the marginalizing experiences of the protected group she allegedly belongs to. That violates the spirit of the law and demonstrates a cynical disregard for those who may benefit and who have a legitimate claim to a protected status.
And the contention of my post was to state that Democrats will vote for her because they don’t care about her integrity – she has a “D” next to her name and that’s what truly matters. That is what she has in common with Kennedy – Many of their supporters are indifferent to moral or ethical failings because they share the same ideology.
I know you don’t want to concede that which is why you are trying to engage me in a discussion about the merits of the Blunt Amendment. While we are there allow me this aside. There is a term that captures the essence of deciding what one wishes to cover as an employer. It’s called “freedom.” The cost of a month’s supply of generic oral contraceptive is about $30.00. Let’s not pretend people will be dying in the streets without this coverage but do let us consider how cheaply we bargained away the freedom of employers to decide what they can afford to cover and what they can’t.
Finally, if I simply read Brietbart I’d be drinking to Kool-Aid thinking Brown will win. I don’t think he will win. I strive to read as much objective news sources as I can. Daily Caller, RedState, Fox! (Goading now!!)
Eric J | Sep 25, 2012 | Reply
I was perusing BlueMassGroup.com this afternoon(I had already read EVERYTHING on Brietbart!). During an interview with Jim Braude & Margery Eagan yesterday morning, senate candidate Elizabeth Warren disclosed that she isn’t a licensed attorney in Massachusetts. This prompted speculation by some that she may have violated Mass law by practicing without a license. That was being discussed and I quote:
” How big a problem might this be?
christopher | Mon, Sep 24, 2012 3:17 PM EST
A conservative legal blogger makes the case that Elizabeth Warren violated MA law by practicing law from Cambridge without being licensed in MA to do so. I still say of course that she knows the relevant issues and will have a better voting record than Brown even if the worst spin on this is true, but I certainly hope she followed the law. The right-wing blogosphere are already accusing the “liberal media” of conspiring to cover this up. Can we get Elizabeth Warren’s side and/or neutral fact-checking on this issue pronto?”
To paraphrase, “Even if she broke the law I’m still voting for her!”
Now I have no idea if there is any validity to this and I am not asserting that there is. I’m just providing evidence of the mindset which was my point from the beginning!
Shawn | Sep 25, 2012 | Reply
Always good for a liberal to go on Braude’s show when its time to release this type of information.
Who else will through the softball and downplay the whole incident?
That is, other than CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, The Globe, ….
Rich Cowan | Sep 25, 2012 | Reply
Well you may be right about the time wasting… how many people read this?
Seriously, I think the analogies you initially gave were a bit over the top and many of those occurred when Warren was a registered Republican. The idea that Democrats are immune from consequences in this state is clearly false when elected officials like Bump and Moakley are so actively pursuing corruption cases.
Back to Warren. Whatever the situation was, I think it resolved itself between 1995 and 1998 when Harvard Law gave tenure to Professor Lani Guinier, who was proclaimed the first tenured woman of color from day one. Critics of the college like former Prof. Derrick Bell (who GAVE UP TENURE over this issue) never considered the race issue resolved in 1995 and never protested Warren’s hiring as unfair. That’s good enough for me.
Eric J | Sep 25, 2012 | Reply
Okay Rich, I hate to do this because it’s like shooting fish in a barrel. First, this was NEVER a discussion of the merits of Harvard’s hiring practices or their diversity outreach. Neither was it about the Blunt amendment or whether Democrats in an oversight capacity were doing their jobs. It was about Democrat voters in Massachusetts frequently giving their full-throated support to politicians who have demonstrated a lack of character through their criminal, unethical or immoral behavior. Not once have you addressed this premise head-on. You’ve attempted several pivots to discuss ancillary issues but never the actual subject at hand.
In your most recent pivot you said that my analogies were over the top. I have not employed ANY analogies. I have stated facts. I think you used the term “analogy” in order to suggest an issue with my credibility. Everything I mentioned is irrefutable historical fact. If they seem over the top to you then you actually are making my point in how flagrant the aberrant behavior is that liberals will tolerate from the politicians they support.
Now as another aside you mentioned Susan Bump & “Moakley” those tireless and vigilant watchdogs holding corruption at bay here in the commonwealth. When you wrote “Moakley” I think you meant Coakley. Joe Moakley was a congressman who has gone to his great reward. Even in that state however he would be doing a better job prosecuting political corruption than Martha Coakley. With all the rampant political corruption in this State Coakley has initiated few if any investigations.
And yesterday she attended a campaign event for John Tierney, he with the wife convicted of aiding in the management of an illegal gambling ring. In most jurisdictions the top law enforcement officer would probably avoid such a juxtaposition. Not Martha! Oh and Lizzie Warren was there as well. http://www.bostonherald.com/news/politics/view.bg?articleid=1061162853
In 2009 Susan Bump hired a convicted murderer to work for the State. The woman she hired was involved in the satanic murder of a prostitute. Didn’t matter to Democrats – this paragon of dubious judgment was elected auditor! http://bostonherald.com/news/politics/view/20101029suzanne_bump_defends_offices_hiring_of_paroled_killer
I am pleased that you brought these two up. I had forgotten about them and they make my point that much more vividly.
Now, if and when you respond, please don’t try to engage in a discussion of the competing merits of satanic cults. I’m anticipating that will be your next pivot in order to avoid acknowledging the obvious. It’s okay Rich, I know you’ll support Liz despite some ethical failings on her part. You’re not alone!
Rich Cowan | Sep 26, 2012 | Reply
Eric –
I was always a bit suspicious about Bump but I haven’t heard too much against Coakley, except that she has been pretty good on mortage/lending issues. I did want to provoke a response about the Bump investigation (of a special education scandal affecting Dracut tax dollars) so that is why I even mentioned her name. Have you read her report?
Your statement about dems voting “D” (and I’d add, republicans voting “R”) without much thought is of course very true. Many voters are probably unware of what the current scandals are.
Of those in Tierney’s district who are aware of his wife’s misdeeds, some may believe Tierney is at fault but will ask, “How I know that the challenger will not have ethical issues that are similar or worse?”
If you look at all the money spent on the big dig beyond what was budgeted — with Republicans in the governor’s office at the time — you might conclude that corruption is not just a problem related to one party.
I am all for reducing corruption. Brown sits on committee (Armed Services) where he could be a big player in rooting out Pentagon waste. If he is focusing on this I am not aware of it. I know he played a pivotal role in derailing some important reforms that would have reduced corruption in the financial industry by prohibiting banks from owning hedge funds.
I can’t respond to every point you raise but I have tried to address some of the important ones.
Eric J | Sep 27, 2012 | Reply
Rich – with all due respect, you say that you’re “all for reducing corruption” but I’m not convinced. How can we be serious about reducing corruption when we continue to elect people who are corrupt? Let’s say for the purposes of discussion that John Tierney gets reelected. What message have we sent him about ethical behavior? We say, it doesn’t matter! If we send Elizabeth Warren to the senate, what does it say to her about personal integrity? We say it’s optional.
I actually agree with some of what Warren proposes to do in terms of the re-enactment of Glass/Steagall. But I believe she cynically gamed the system to secure her position at Harvard and I can’t vote for her because of that. You can’t have part time personal integrity.
You say you want to reduce corruption but you call Tierney’s wife’s criminal convictions “misdeeds” as if she crossed against the light or double parked in front of Starbucks. You suggest not enough people knew about Ted Kennedy leaving a girl to drown and that’s why they reelected him a hundred times and speak his name in hushed whispers of reverence as if in a church. You even say that a valid reason for voting for someone you know to have ethical failings is because it’s possible his or her opponent may be unethical too. Well, I grant you that in this State you might have a point there!
You loath to admit was is obvious – there is a Stepford mentality among democrats in Massachusetts – integrity is less important than ideology. If they are a “D” then their misdeeds, perversions, criminality or lack of ethics doesn’t matter. And I think you are similarly afflicted.
You cannot simultaneously seek to reduce corruption and then support it by voting for people who exhibit a lack of charcter.
Rich Cowan | Sep 28, 2012 | Reply
“You cannot simultaneously seek to reduce corruption and then support it by voting for people who exhibit a lack of charcter.”
I assure you that I have no plans to vote for Tierney so I don’t see how relevant this is. Kennedy is not a “current scandal”; I can’t vote for him either. Warren supported the DISCLOSE act which would have been a great tool to prevent secret undue influence on politicians by big banks, military contractors, and billionaires. Her opponent said “a genuine campaign finance reform effort would include increased transparency” then he voted against it in July 2012.
Holding yourself to your own standard, will you support Barry Finegold for State Senate, then? Because his opponent, Paul Adams, lied in a debate that he wasn’t fined for a violation of campaign finance law. He actually had to pay $4,000 and agree to forfeit $45,000 that otherwise could have been paid back to him by his campaign committee. Adams initially claimed that the late infusion of personal cash in his run for State Rep. in 2010 was the result of an investment windfall. This story fell apart and it was determined that $13,000 came from his brother. This was clearly an attempt to evade the campaign finance limit of $500. More recently his family members have been building a war chest (legally) through multiple $5,000 donations to a town PAC based in central MA. The committee claims it is under no pressure to spend these funds on Adams’ race. We’ll see about that!
Eric J | Sep 29, 2012 | Reply
I’m happy to support Finegold and I’ll probably support Colleen Garry as well. In terms of political positions, I am usually more aligned with Republicans but Adams does appear to have a tenuous relationship with the truth and I don’t buy his explanations. Cathy Richardson refused to debate Boag citing time constraints. She knocks Garry for having a second job but couldn’t find an hour or two for a debate with Boag. (citing her other commitments as the reason why!) That kind of political double-speak has sent me RUNNING to Garry. I don’t agree with Colleen on everything but she’s a fiscal conservative and I have never found her to duplicitous. She’s also not afraid to debate and defend her positions vigorously.
Integrity over party.
By the way, that was a direct response – no spinning – no pivots.
You keep bringing up Brown’s positions that you don’t agree with. I’m not arguing positions on issues. You KNOW Warren called herself a woman of color. You KNOW that’s not true. Like an automaton, despite your obvious intelligence and many like you will vote for her knowing she, in essence, lied. Not only did she lie, she took a position that should have been there for someone who is a legitimate Native American.
Liberals are ALWAYS for the powerless unless it’s an authentic Native American who earned a right to being considered at Harvard. Unless its Paula Jones or Mary-Jo Kopechne. Then they dissemble, spin, equivocate and take great pains to talk about anything else!